I am blessed with a mix of friends (and facebook friends, specifically) whom do not all share the same views as me or each other. I believe it is important to seek to understand opposing positions and viewpoints, and that dismissing people, blocking or unfriending people, starting fights and name-calling are all destructive and divisive. That's not to say that I condemn anyone who has taken those actions themselves; we each do what we think we should do and what we are compelled to do for our own sanity and positivity. For some, that has meant unfriending, or blocking, or even removing themselves from social media. I practice and advocate for limiting social media use, and have a timer on my facebook, among other methods, to limit it in my own life and still be able to share and enjoy the things that made social media attractive in the first place.
All that being said, I have really struggled to understand people who continue to make excuses for Trump, to side with him and even to repeat his lies about election fraud and COVID conspiracies, etc. In an effort to try to understand, I have spent time reading their arguments and doing my own research. I've taken one lengthy rant from a friend that has a lot of meat to it, because I think this is a helpful insight for me and for other anti-Trumpers to hear and to understand. But also, perhaps my research and my opinions and insights can help Trump supporters understand what makes me and so many others oppose Trump so strongly as well. I did my best in the time I allotted to find credible sources of truth to dispute and to support these selling points for Trump. And, I also share my viewpoint from what I have read and learned.
First, here is the Trump supporter's commentary, unmodified:
"For the bad people may cite, this President brought tax relief to my family, helped close so many Planned Parenthood abortion clinics I can’t even imagine the number of lives that have been saved. He brought illegal immigration to 5% of what it was, lowered unemployment for all people groups and ethnicities, attended prayer meetings with pastors, appointed SCOTUS justices that uphold the sanctity of life. He move the US embassy to Jerusalem and supported Israel to see the best peace they have had in many decades. He actually reduced coal usage and even though people want to blame him for Covid deaths, never has more assistance been given by an Administration to see therapeutics and vaccines developed and delivered in response to a respiratory disease.
"He also restored due process to the prosecution of accusations.
"For all the bad people see, and as so many are firm of upholding that this election has no shenanigans, he single-handedly brought more people to the voting booth than ever in history.
"In addition to my reply in your own post, I will add that Trump is to thank for US oil independence, the destruction of the ISIS caliphate and reforms to trade agreements with Canada, Mexico and China that brought jobs back to the US and reforms to the way we honor our treaties without bearing all the financial burden.
"I mourn for the nation that put Biden and Harris in the helm as they do not aspire to a free America. They want more control over your life and all your doings. They are convinced they know better than you as to how you may live. They support the wholesale murder of unborn children and the theft of earned wages to gift to another making slaves of both."
Here's my analysis and opinions of these "facts":
"For the bad people may cite, this President brought tax relief to my family,"
This post by the Wall Street Journal captures two opposing viewpoints of Trump's tax cuts: "A White House insider describes a marked shift in the labor market, while an outside economist sees a short-term boost and a lasting deficit increase." https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-views-on-how-trumps-tax-cuts-have-worked-out-11578114001 I'll get into the labor market a bit later, but I do have severe concerns about "what cost" the tax cuts came to us. Sure, if you're looking at your own well-being in the short term, you could tout this as a benefit afford to you by Trump. I have benefited personally as well, as one who usually itemizes to maximize my tax refund (or minimize what I owe), last year was the first year that I took the standard deduction because it was better than my itemization. But Trump is spending US dollars, too (remember that wall that the Mexicans were paying for? Yeah, we paid for that...), and so increasing the deficit. So the tax cut isn't as simple as more money for US citizens. Still, I can understand how supporters would see this as a win.
"helped close so many Planned Parenthood abortion clinics I can’t even imagine the number of lives that have been saved."
Welp, there's this from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/21/health-202-funding-planned-parenthood-went-up-yes-up-during-trump-administration/):
"Federal funds to the women’s health-care and abortion provider grew during the first two and a half years of his administration… Medicaid payments have long formed the bulk of federal funds flowing to Planned Parenthood, reimbursing its clinics for providing birth control and preventive services to low-income Americans. The provider reported $616.8 million in government revenue in its most recent report, which was for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. That's up from $543.7 million when Trump took office in 2017."
But, Trump took actions in 2019 to defund Planned Parenthood. NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/nearly-900-women-s-health-clinics-have-lost-federal-funding-n1069591) cites that 900 clinics lost their funding. Politfact (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1357/defund-planned-parenthood/) says, "The Trump administration enacted a rule that effectively said that any facility receiving federal Title X funding cannot also be an abortion provider. Previously, abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood could receive Title X funds as long as the funds were only used for non-abortion services." So as far as defunding, yes, I would agree he did seem to have done this in 2019 (after the higher payouts in 2018-2019 fiscal year).
However, I could not find any references to Planned Parenthood clinics actually closing due to Trump's actions (one article referenced just 11 closures due to the pandemic, implying they may re-open once COVID is under control). Some articles supposed that clinics "could" close, have shorter hours, longer waits and higher costs due to Trump's actions, but nothing said Planned Parenthood was stopping abortions or closing clinics that I could find.
Moreover, this I think is one of the most sensitive and convoluted topics in American politics, and I don't believe victories can be celebrated in earnest on either side no matter any outcomes. Here's why I say that: funding or defunding Planned Parenthood doesn't just impact abortions, it impacts women's access to cancer screenings and birth control. If pregnant women who don't want their babies can't get safe, legal abortions, some percentage will resort to other things which are more dangerous or cruel to themselves and to their unborn or newborn babies. So even if political actions could perfectly remove legal abortions without removing the other benefits of clinics like Planned Parenthood, that doesn't mean that abortions won't happen illegally, or that baby homicides won't increase, or that unwanted babies won't be neglected. I totally understand the religious beliefs that drive prolifers, I do, I promise. But it's not as simple as making abortions illegal and then all unplanned pregnancies are carried to full term and end with a well-loved and cared for life, saved from the evils of abortion. It doesn't work that way.
So if your primary reason for supporting Trump is antiabortion, I would argue that though Trump did successfully execute the action he promised, I don't think the action was the right one or anywhere near sufficient to claim a prolife victory. Honestly, I strongly believe this is an issue, like gay marriage, that should not be in the public domain. If you believe abortions or gay marriages are wrong, don't have one, but don't take away the option to someone who doesn't agree with your beliefs.
"He brought illegal immigration to 5% of what it was,"
This article from FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/) has data through 2018, but shows a significant drop in many of the metrics PRIOR to Trump taking office, and honestly, not a lot of movement in the two years of his presidency until the article was written.
The 2020 report from the Department of Homeland Security (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/Special_Reports/Enforcement_Lifecycle/2020_enforcement_lifecycle_report.pdf) also doesn't seem to show that much decline since Trump took office, and more declines prior to his inauguration.
The Southwest Border information here (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration-fy2020) is a little bit harder to read, but clearly the years Trump was in office were not consistently better than the years prior, and certainly not 95% better.
"lowered unemployment for all people groups and ethnicities"
This albeit Opinion article from the Tampa Bay Times (https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2020/10/23/a-chart-of-unemployment-under-trump-and-obama-tells-quite-a-tale-column/) shows a clear chart and describes the impact this way: "During Trump’s first three years in office the unemployment rate declined from 4.7 percent to 3.5 percent — a 1.2 percentage point decline — quite satisfactory but nothing earth-shaking as his administration would like you to believe. If you look at the chart, 2017-2019 is an extension of the same downward trend (momentum) in the unemployment rate that began in 2010. Moreover, the slope flattens a bit during Trump’s tenure implying that the job creation rate was a bit slower under his tenure."
The BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430) shows similar charts that imply the economic success under Trump was also a continuation of trends started before he took office. As far as helping all groups and ethnicities, the article cites, "This overall national figure masks wide variations across regions and ethnic groups in America. In 2019, while 10.5% of the population was defined as living in poverty, the figure for black Americans was 18.8 and for white (non-Hispanic) Americans it was 7.3%."
This Associated Press Fact Check article (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-06-07/ap-fact-check-trump-exaggerations-on-blacks-economic-gains) states bluntly how unevenly the benefits have come: "The joblessness figures in Friday's report did not improve uniformly across racial and ethnic groups. The unemployment rate did decline last month for white workers, to 12.4% from 14.2% in April, as well as for Latinos, to 17.6% from 18.9%. But joblessness actually rose slightly for African American workers, to 16.8% from 16.7%. For Asian Americans, it increased to 15% from 14.5%." The article then goes on to say:
"Black unemployment reached a record low during the Trump administration, 5.4% in August, as the longest economic expansion in history pressed ahead.
"Most of the progress came when Barack Obama was president: Black unemployment dropped from a recession high of 16.8% in March 2010 to 7.8% in January 2017. Improvement continued under Trump until the pandemic. Black unemployment reached 16.8% in May, compared with 13.3% for the overall population.
Not all economic measures improved for African Americans under Trump before the pandemic. A black household earned median income of $41,361 in 2018, the latest data available. That’s below a 2000 peak of $43,380, according to the Census Bureau.
"More broadly, there were multiple signs before the pandemic that the racial wealth gap had been worsening."
"attended prayer meetings with pastors"
I'm not even going to research this because if this is how you measure the success of the US Presidency, I just can't even debate with you. I understand this is one of many highlights in the OP's mind, but this has no value or meaning to me.
"appointed SCOTUS justices that uphold the sanctity of life."
Again back to the abortion topic, but a different action. If your prolife views are a predominant reason you support Trump, I understand if you view this is a victory. But even if this is a victory in your eyes, I can't imagine a moral person looking beyond the apparent hypocrisy as discussed here (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ruth-bader-ginsburg-merrick-garland-elections-us-supreme-court-bb9932748b199f793cb2ccbefa713a5f). McConnel had to back peddle a bit to justify his hypocrisy, and "It doesn’t pass the smell test in any way."
"He move the US embassy to Jerusalem and supported Israel to see the best peace they have had in many decades."
Indeed, he did make the bold move of the embassy. I could not find statistics that support or refute the claim that Israel has more peace now. The embassy move came with protests and threats from Palestinians, and indeed, Israel was not wholly left alone as demonstrated by the headline and details in this article "Trump Campaign Declares Middle East Peace Achieved As Israel Sustains Rocket Attacks" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/15/trump-campaign-declares-middle-east-peace-achieved-as-israel-sustains-rocket-attacks/?sh=4ce1a77d5e36) in which 13 Israelis were injured by Palestinian rockets shooting for 3 hours. But whether the level of violence is lower or the same (or higher), I could not determine in the time I spent researching. One of the major criticisms of the Trump campaign's claim of achieving peace is the fact that the agreement made was between countries that were not actively at war with Israel. The campaign even went so far as to promote the idea that Trump should be awarded the "Noble [sic] Peace Prize."
"He actually reduced coal usage"
This is an interesting claim to promote, given that Trump was actually promising to save coal production jobs. But, I certainly can appreciate that Trump supporters, like most humans, have their own values which can differ from others, even those they support. I, myself, was a Republican that wanted sustainable energy at one point. So, I'm here for it.
My research shows that this is true, coal usage decreased in Trump's presidency, something we can't say for the previous Republican President. However, a simple graph once again appears to show that the reduction was a continuation of a downward trend that started after plateauing near its peak between 2005 and 2008. 2009 saw a huge drop (perhaps because of the economic downturn, I'm not sure though), and then mostly has come down since 2010. This Forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/08/26/trumps-coal-resurgence-promise-has-gone-underground/?sh=b79f81b56d8e) talks a lot about the results of Trump's Clean Air Act. For straight data, take a look at this chart (https://www.statista.com/statistics/184333/coal-energy-consumption-in-the-us/).
"and even though people want to blame him for Covid deaths, never has more assistance been given by an Administration to see therapeutics and vaccines developed and delivered in response to a respiratory disease."
Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed, promising millions would be vaccinated by the end of 2020, which didn't happen, but we are getting close. There are now two vaccines approved by the FDA - Moderna and Pfizer. Moderna did partner with the administration as part of Operation Warp Speed. However, Trump's campaign claimed victory for Pfizer's vaccine development. "In fact, Pfizer partnered with the vaccine’s original developer, Germany’s BioNTech, in March and the following month announced the first human study in Germany. The White House announced Operation Warp Speed in May… The company says it has risked $2 billion of its own money on vaccine development and won’t get anything from Washington unless the effort is successful… However, Pfizer did sign an agreement with the U.S. government in July worth $1.95 billion — if the vaccine pans out and is cleared by the FDA — to supply 100 million doses." (source: https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-coronavirus-vaccine-fact-check-20201113-pkzbkcfd5bcalpgkvbavqfi5iq-story.html)
Moreover, downplaying Trump's responsibility for the pandemic deaths is a pretty big error in my opinion. Despite his Operation Warp Speed to get a vaccine, there are Trump followers who still believe the COVID-19 is fake, largely due to Trump's misleading rhetoric around the virus. Now the administration is claiming victory on the pandemic, even as cases continue to rise. I found this Opinion piece summarizing the reason people blame Trump for the COVID deaths: "12 ways the Trump administration botched America's response to Covid-19" (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/opinions/ways-trump-botched-covid-response-holtgrave/index.html)
"He also restored due process to the prosecution of accusations."
Admittedly, I had to look this one up because I had thus far missed it. In theory, it does sound like the right thing to do - to provide the accused the assumption of innocence and put more structure around making determinations that would lead to consequences for the accused. This article proclaims victory at last (https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-due-process-at-last-20200506-arjngpvxkneqtajeypn6gc3dtq-story.html).
However, there were some arguably immoral aspects of the new Title IX rules, including "changing the definition of sexual assault to require that it be 'so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to education.' This change means that students would be forced to put up with escalating levels of sexual harassment without getting help from their schools; many incidents of sexual harassment and violence would no longer 'count' (From https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administrations-new-title-ix-rules-are-attack-students-metoo-opinion-1503216). Additionally, evidence is quite a challenging and subjective topic, one that sounds great in theory but much more challenging in practice.
Like abortion, this is another tricky topic, I believe, because sexual harassment and sexual assault is so pervasive and yet so hard to prove. Of course, nobody on either side wants to see an innocent man to be accused and to suffer whatever consequences come with a guilty verdict. But, we also have a moral obligation to fight against sexual harassment and sexual assault. The risk here, of course, is that these new regulations will allow offenders to more easily get away with real acts of violence and sexual assault, and potentially go on to repeat the offenses, knowing how to "get away with it." This is both a victory and a loss when you look at it with an open mind, I believe.
"For all the bad people see,"
I'm breaking this comment out separately because I think it needs to be said: Words matter. Actions matter. But words still matter - especially when those words invoke actions. The 911 and poison control calls resulting from Trump's suggestion to drink disinfectant (https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-to-poison-centers-spike--after-the-presidents-comments-about-using-disinfectants-to-treat-coronavirus/?sh=67a310161157) is one of many clear examples of this.
Even before he was elected, he proved to be of poor moral character, from his "grab 'em by the pussy" comment and association with porn stars to his refusal to provide tax documents and willingness to lie about the reasons. I mean, for all that birther crap he pushed during Obama's terms, doesn't it seem hypocritical to not share documentation of his own when called for?
The bottom line is this: He lies. Now, politicians are often stereotyped as a bit of a deceitful bunch, and many fail to deliver on some or all of their campaign promises - Trump would not be the first in either of those two categories, not by a long shot. But he lies so fluently, so easily, and so often, not just exaggerating but outright lying, that for people paying attention and not under his spell, it's become impossible to believe a single word he says. With all my might, I cannot put aside his demonstrated (and boasted) lack of moral integrity to see how a God-fearing Christian or Jew can support him wholeheartedly or defend his morals. If the only thing you care about is abortion, fine, he's walked and talked in support of prolife while in his campaign and office (although he had previously said he supports choice). But if you care about literally any other moral aspect, you have to see that he's much more than imperfect.
Those of us who have dealt with extreme narcissists recognize him well - he is the kind who will stop at nothing to gloat and win for his own good, and he will only pretend to care about others when it suits his cause to do so. When we're talking about the Presidency, we're talking about a leader for our great country, and being a leader should have morality as a responsibility and criteria.
Another Trump-supporting friend commented this similar sentiment: "You just screwed us because you couldn't hit the mute button when Trump talked or tweeted."
Hitting the mute button should not be a recommendation. Defending someone by saying you should hit the mute button when they talk is not ok, but if that someone is the President of the United States, it's really, really wrong in my opinion. Sure, actions speak louder than words, but words still matter. Words. Matter.
"and as so many are firm of upholding that this election has no shenanigans,"
I wouldn’t agree that there were "no shenanigans," but yes, most of the country, the millions who voted for Biden especially, do uphold that this election was free and fair. The reason is because the evidence to the contrary has been disputed and the courts have ruled that there was no sufficient case for fraud. Anecdotes that a dead person voted or someone used a loophole that one time for that one case does not mean there was widespread election fraud. The numbers changed overnight? Well yes, that was clearly and obviously related to the mail-in ballots, heavily favoring Biden since Trump discouraged his voters to use mail-in voting. Remember, these were largely the same election officials and same election rules as in the 2016 vote, when much of the country was shocked and appalled that Trump came out a victor. If there was a deep-state invisible hand guiding the election process, don't you think they would have named Hillary the victor four years ago? This is not a media thing, nor a conspiracy. The only conspiring here is widespread action of the millions of honest US citizens who voted for Biden (or against Trump) because they have been so appalled by Trump's Presidency that they were moved to vote. There are a million articles on this topic, google it if you really want a source for this one, I'm exhausted by it all.
The more infuriating thing, I think, is again the hypocrisy. In 2016, Democrats contested certain election results as the rational world was still stunned by the apparent Trump victory, and Trump ranted about how Democrats were such sore losers and should just accept the results. Those comments couldn't be more applicable to Trump's actions in 2020 and the start of 2021.
"he single-handedly brought more people to the voting booth than ever in history."
Well, yes, indeed he did. Was it because he inspired civic duty, though? Because that's obviously what this comment is meant to imply. I feel like there's something to be said about the means to an end justifying the means, here though…
I think what Trump supporters don't seem to grasp is that the hatred of this despicable man is what drove so many people to the polls favoring Biden. The book, "The Keys to the White House" proposes a prediction methodology that has worked for every election up until 2016 on the basis of one overarching idea: that the US vote is, more than anything else, a scorecard on the current President's performance. In the theory, there are 13 keys, and most of them have to do with the current economy, foreign actions, and current President and current Congress. Only one of the 13 keys relates to the challenger in the race, and one other key relates to other challengers in the sitting President's party. This theory predicted Trump to win the popular vote in 2016, which he didn't actually, but he did win the electoral college, which we all know is what matters. This was the first time the theory was disproved, but even still, it was partially right in that Trump won the Presidency. So the fact that many more people came out in droves to determine if Trump would get a second term, I think, is very obviously a direct correlation to the passion both sides have. And indeed, there were enough people voting against Trump, more than ever in history, to beat the large numbers of people who voted for Trump, which was also a record.
Comparing it to all of history, however, is overexaggerating the reality, considering the population has, of course, grown over history as well. As a percentage of the eligible or voting age populations, this election was NOT, in fact, record breaking. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections)
No comments:
Post a Comment